### Inter-country adoptions under HAMA require District Magistrate verification and CARA support letters for immigration compliance.

The petitioners, residing in Victoria, Australia, adopted twin minor girls born on February 22, 2022.

The biological mother (petitioner No. 1’s sister) passed away a day after the birth, leading the biological father to hand over the children to the petitioners.

A formal adoption deed was executed and registered on September 29, 2022, under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act (HAMA), 1956, and subsequent birth certificates were issued naming the petitioners as parents.

To process the children's immigration, Australian authorities required a verification order from the District Magistrate and a No Objection Certificate (NOC)/Support Letter from the Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA).

Despite a representation made on September 11, 2025, the respondents failed to issue the necessary clearances, stalling the immigration process.

The court applied the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (HAMA), which governs the substantive legality of adoptions among Hindus.

It primarily relied on Chapter VIII of the Adoption Regulations, 2022, specifically Regulation 64, which extends these rules to HAMA adoptions by parents residing outside India, and Regulation 67, which outlines the procedure for verifying registered adoption deeds and the subsequent issuance of a Support Letter or NOC by CARA for Hague and non-Hague Convention countries.

The court also noted the precedent set by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prema Gopal v. Central Adoption Resource Authority and Ors. (2025), which clarifies the mandatory nature of issuing such support documentation for concluded HAMA adoptions.

The court observed that the adoption was lawfully concluded through a registered deed under HAMA on September 29, 2022.

Although Regulation 67 typically contemplates deeds executed prior to the 2021 amendments, the court reasoned that there is no legal hurdle to applying the spirit of these regulations to subsequent adoptions to ensure the paramount welfare of the children.

The court linked the statutory requirements of the receiving country (Australia) with the procedural obligations of respondent No. 1 (CARA) and respondent No. 2 (District Magistrate), noting that the lack of timely action by these authorities created an impasse for the children’s immigration.

By aligning the facts with the Supreme Court’s directions in Prema Gopal, the court determined that the authorities must verify the existing registered deed rather than requiring a fresh process through the CARINGS portal.

Specifically, the District Magistrate (Respondent No. 2) is directed to verify the HAMA deed, and CARA (Respondent No. 1) is directed to issue a Support Letter in the format prescribed by the Supreme Court in Prema Gopal to facilitate the children's immigration to Australia.

Rule was made absolute to this extent.